Peter was the first pope / Kingdom of Priests -- RSQUBF discussion forum

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 18:40:55 11/20/04 Sat
Author: Chris
Subject: Peter was the first pope / Kingdom of Priests
In reply to: Bob 's message, "Re: New thread on doctrine" on 22:13:06 11/19/04 Fri

Yes, I think it is part of UBF�s doctrine that Peter was the first pope, or that Peter had a commander-in-chief position like Samuel Lee in the early church. UBF�s basic paradigm is that the basic structur of the church is hierarchical, authoritarian and using one-man-leadership. Therefore, they believe that Peter was the �chief� of the other Apostles. You can see this also (here) in Kaleb Hong�s message on Luke 9:48. UBF always assumes hierachical command-and-obedience structures, they cannot imagine that the 12 apostles did not have such a hierarchy. For an UBFer, the idea that Peter did not claim an authority position like Samuel Lee, but could be rebuked by Paul, or the fact that he called himself not �director� or �top elder,� but �fellow elder,� or the fact that James and John were considered equally important as Peter would not come to the mind of a UBFer. There is a very interesting verse saying that James, Peter and John were �those reputed to be pillars.� This bowls down three UBF ideas at the same time: First, if Peter was a �top man;� then only together with James and John, he never excerted autocratical one-man-leadership like Samuel Lee. When the NT talks about decisions who had been made, than they were made by everybody together. Only at one place, James had the final say, but not Peter. Second, the verse says that authority is something that needs to be earned, and not simply claimed. The leaders did not simply claim to be leaders, though they could have easily done this, because they were authorized by Jesus, but it was important that others accept their authority from themselves because of their good reputation. The verse does not simply claim they were pillars, but it lays emphasis on the fact that they were reputed to be pillars. Third, we see that they were not �those reputed to be leaders�, or �those who had the say� but �those reputed to be pillars.� They served the ministry from below, making themselves small and carrying all kind of burdens, instead of ruling from above. If the early church also had pyramide-shape structure, then it was reversed,with the peak at the bottom, the basis (the �rank-and-file members�) at the top, with these pillars carrying the whole building of the church.

One of the fundamental problems of UBF is their elitism. The phrase from Ex 19:6 �A kingdom of priests and a holy nation� plays an important role in UBF, because they use it to strengthen their elitism and to intensify their cult identity. They apply this verse to themselves, to the UBF organization only. Like all cult members, UBF members believe to be something special, better, more hard-working, more biblical, more spiritual, more godly etc. than other Christians. They claim to have an identity as Christians, but their real identity is the identity as UBF member. All cults need to have a strong group identity.

Of course, this is abuse of the verse. In the Bible, in the OT, the verse refers to the people of Israel. In the NT, 1Peter 2:5-9, Peter expands its application to mean all born-again believers in Jesus Christ, i.e. Jews and Non-Jews alike. It was never meant to refer to one ministry alone or to establich a cultish group identity.

Sometimes, UBF also uses the words �holy nation� to illustrate the ultimate aim of their business: To �UBFify� a whole nation, to turn all students into UBF shepherds. One important means of UBF manipulation is to give members a �vision.� For instance, the German members get the vision �Germany a holy nation,� likewise they do it in other countries. This again means twisting the meaning of the verse. The Apostle Peter says in the passage: �But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light. Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God;�. I.e. the verse is not meant as a vision for a nation or mission goal, but to give Christians an identity now (or more than 1900 years ago). It speaks about awareness of history of the past (�you were not�), not of the future. Also, it is really perveting the spirit of the Bible if you emphasize certain nations as �holy nations.� Jesus had come to tear down artificial political and cultural barriers. He wanted that Christians of all nations are united in their being God�s children, that we all are one and do not think in terms of nations, at least when it comes to our identity as children of God. In the context of this verse, speaking about political nations is contrary to the very spirit of the Biblical passage. �For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility.� �And they sang a new song: You are worthy � with your blood you purchased men for God from every tribe and language and people and nation.� Thinking in terms of national borders has no place in the Kingdom of God.

I would like to refer to a very good booklet by William MacDonald with the title �To What Should We Be Loyal� (you can read it there online, it is not long). From the 9 basic truths to which the church should be loyal, UBF neglects 8, all except the priesthood of all believers (i.e. �kingdom of priests and a holy nation�). As I pointed out, that doctrine is not neglected, but it is not interpreted and applied correctly in UBF.

Another pretty good article is Church Government. It is not written by a scholar, but by an ex member of the Worldwide Church of God (WCG) (also known as the cult of Herbert Armstrong). That church/cult had similar problems as UBF has, which obviously challenged the author of the article to deeply study the problems, in order to find out what went so terribly wrong, just as some of us ex UBF members did.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

UBF shepherds want to be treated like popes -- PECAS, 14:10:21 11/22/04 Mon